Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The qualities of the cars was not the same, JV had a far better car and a weaker teammate, Hamilton equaled Alonso whilst Hill was clearly stronger than JV.

Pokerman, I can't make sense of what you wrote there. Please make up your mind; was Hill stronger or weaker than Villeneuve? Or do you mean that Frentzen was weaker than Villeneuve? Frentzen, who took Jordan into contention in 1999?

I also don't understand what you're saying about the cars. Villeneuve may have won his title in a superior car. That is the normal state of affairs.In his first year Hamilton had a car that was at least as good as the Ferrari. Without his team engaging in industrial espionage, it would have won the constructors' title. In Hamilton's second year, he may have had a weaker team-mate, but again a car that was roughly the equal of the Ferrari, as is suggested by the tightness of the result for the drivers' title. And that time they were allowed to compete for the constructors' title. And to borrow a phrase from Jenson Button a few years later, the car in 2008 was "his".

By mentioning Alonso I was clearly talking about their respective rookie first seasons, I've no idea what you are talking about with Button?

I think Poker's point is fairly simple. The actual results between Hamilton and JV may have been quite similar in their first 2 years, but the level of performances required to achieve those results was not similar at all.

Exactly in simplistic terms but of course it needed explaining why, but that then seems to over complicate the matter?

I think Poker's point is fairly simple. The actual results between Hamilton and JV may have been quite similar in their first 2 years, but the level of performances required to achieve those results was not similar at all.

And I fully agree to this (although I think that the car-wise dominance of Williams fully vanished in the course of the 1997 season).

Just a note on the cross-teammate comparisons:Alonso > D. Hill, agreed. But surely also Frentzen > Kovalainen, or?

Agreed but the Williams was still clearly the fastest car over the season whereas the McLaren is seen as not as fast as the Ferrari in 2008.

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The qualities of the cars was not the same, JV had a far better car and a weaker teammate, Hamilton equaled Alonso whilst Hill was clearly stronger than JV.

Pokerman, I can't make sense of what you wrote there. Please make up your mind; was Hill stronger or weaker than Villeneuve? Or do you mean that Frentzen was weaker than Villeneuve? Frentzen, who took Jordan into contention in 1999?

I also don't understand what you're saying about the cars. Villeneuve may have won his title in a superior car. That is the normal state of affairs.In his first year Hamilton had a car that was at least as good as the Ferrari. Without his team engaging in industrial espionage, it would have won the constructors' title. In Hamilton's second year, he may have had a weaker team-mate, but again a car that was roughly the equal of the Ferrari, as is suggested by the tightness of the result for the drivers' title. And that time they were allowed to compete for the constructors' title. And to borrow a phrase from Jenson Button a few years later, the car in 2008 was "his".

By mentioning Alonso I was clearly talking about their respective rookie first seasons,

Which is why I don't understand you saying Villeneuve had a weaker team-mate. Hill wasn't weaker. If you meant Frentzen in that part of your post, I already explained that Frentzen wasn't weaker. Obviously I can only rely on what I read about his relationship with Williams/Head, but it appears that this was holding him back rather seriously. As I noted, he took Jordan into championship contention two years later

pokerman wrote:

I've no idea what you are talking about with Button?

When Hamilton left McLaren, Button looked forward to having the team develop the car around him, saying "It's my car now!" Not that it did him much good, but the fact he said it is significant. Think back to the drivers at McLaren in 2008, and you'll see what I meant.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The whole "best prepared rookie" thing is hyperbole. The path that Hamilton took to F1 was extremely similar to most other drivers. He went from Formula Renault 2.0 to F3 to GP2. Nothing unusual there except for the fact that he won championships at every level. Villeneuve came up in the North American system and won in Indy before coming to F1. He had to adapt to the European tracks and system. I don't think either of them had some kind of advantage of being "the most prepared".

Hamilton did, in fact, best Alonso during his rookie season and he did it despite Alonso having #1 status for the first 5 races of the season. Alonso actually finished artificially close due to the way Hamilton's season came off the rails in the last 2 rounds.

The idea that Hamilton's results from his first two years are owed to the car to the same extent that JV's are is a joke. Did you watch both of them in their early days? The Williams in 96'-97' was every bit as dominant as the Mercedes from 2014-2016. That was a car that had no business losing and JV almost dropped the championship to MS in 97' despite the massive advantage the car gave him. In 96' Damon Hill comfortably beat JV in the same car. By comparison; McLaren and Ferrari were in close battles for the titles in 2007-2008 and Ferrari were the team with the marginally faster car. Hamilton beat Alonso in his rookie season in the same car and then won the title in 2008.

The impact of the car for JV was MUCH greater. Without having a dominant car, he would never have won the championship. He in fact never even won another race after those two years. Hamilton's car gave him the opportunity to fight for the championship but it did not give him an advantage in that fight.

Edit: Best prepared rookie doesn't mean the career path or results up to the time of the first season in F1, it means how the team for which a newcomer will drive allows him to prepare for the upcoming season, using their cars and all facilities. In that respect Villeneuve and Hamilton were far more fortunate than most others. And it showed in their early races.

Hamilton scored exactly the same number of points as Alonso, so there was no besting involved. They aren't on the same line in the classification, just as setting the same qualification time earlier gets you a better place on the grid, despite not having run any faster than your competitor. What Hamilton achieved was worthy of a lot of respect, but in my estimation he lost some of that when claiming he beat Alonso in 2007. Besides untrue, it is also poor sportsmanship.

Alonso didn't finish artificially close to Hamilton in the last 2 races, Hamilton had problems in both races, of which one was definitely self-inflicted; beaching his car in China. The problem in the final race may or may not have been due to a mistake by him.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Last edited by Fiki on Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The qualities of the cars was not the same, JV had a far better car and a weaker teammate, Hamilton equaled Alonso whilst Hill was clearly stronger than JV.

Pokerman, I can't make sense of what you wrote there. Please make up your mind; was Hill stronger or weaker than Villeneuve? Or do you mean that Frentzen was weaker than Villeneuve? Frentzen, who took Jordan into contention in 1999?

I also don't understand what you're saying about the cars. Villeneuve may have won his title in a superior car. That is the normal state of affairs.In his first year Hamilton had a car that was at least as good as the Ferrari. Without his team engaging in industrial espionage, it would have won the constructors' title. In Hamilton's second year, he may have had a weaker team-mate, but again a car that was roughly the equal of the Ferrari, as is suggested by the tightness of the result for the drivers' title. And that time they were allowed to compete for the constructors' title. And to borrow a phrase from Jenson Button a few years later, the car in 2008 was "his".

By mentioning Alonso I was clearly talking about their respective rookie first seasons,

Which is why I don't understand you saying Villeneuve had a weaker team-mate. Hill wasn't weaker. If you meant Frentzen in that part of your post, I already explained that Frentzen wasn't weaker. Obviously I can only rely on what I read about his relationship with Williams/Head, but it appears that this was holding him back rather seriously. As I noted, he took Jordan into championship contention two years later

pokerman wrote:

I've no idea what you are talking about with Button?

When Hamilton left McLaren, Button looked forward to having the team develop the car around him, saying "It's my car now!" Not that it did him much good, but the fact he said it is significant. Think back to the drivers at McLaren in 2008, and you'll see what I meant.

By me saying their first seasons that clearly doesn't make reference to Frentzen.

Button also said that he now saw himself as the #1 driver after beating Hamilton in 2011, after he won the opening race in 2012 he said 2009 here we go again and then his season fell apart, I always thought his comment related to Hamilton leaving the team making him the outright #1 driver. Button made a lot of not being made a #2 driver to Hamilton but seemed to put a lot of stock in being the sole #1 driver.

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

By mentioning Alonso I was clearly talking about their respective rookie first seasons,

Which is why I don't understand you saying Villeneuve had a weaker team-mate. Hill wasn't weaker.

Are you actually saying that Hill is not a weaker driver than Alonso? I don't think you'd get much support for that position, tbh.

I wasn't saying that at all. But it may be what Pokerman was (unsuccessfully) trying to tell me. Thanks Exediron, I couldn't understand why he seemed to be saying Villeneuve was better than Hill, so I'm glad you cleared that up.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

This is confusing. You are comparing Senna outqualifying Schumacher in different cars to try and get hypothetically how close Hill would be on the same car? It does not compute...

...but it computes perfectly alright to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna so we have some imaginary performance gap that Hill lives in that has no actual measurement?

I agree with Zoue and it is something that many people praise the top drivers for; being able to best an underperforming car. Similar to what Alonso did in his Ferrari years, putting where it did not belong. Yeah, Senna had a difference to Hill when the car was a handful, why is it so alien to say that Hill may have closed the gap with a car that handled more to his liking?

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

Heikki was in the second best car in 2008 and let's not talk about how good the car was in 2009, JV's performances were often masked by how good the Williams was in 1996, the qualifying gap to Hill was quite large 13-3 with an average gap of 0.34s, Hill won 8 races, JV won 4 races, Hill scored 19 more points than JV which in todays money is 48 points with the same mechanical unreliability. The car had similar performance to the Mercedes car of 2014-16, I'm sure in such a car the likes of Bottas might look better and not be in threat of losing his seat.

Anyway you was comparing with Hamilton not Heikki, that seems to be shifting things, Hamilton matched Alonso in every department something that JV didn't do in any department with Hill and Alonso is seen as a much better driver than Hill, let's also not forget here is that your goal is to prove your assertion that JV was a better driver than Rosberg so I think you are coming up a bit short if you are looking to ascertain that JV and Hamilton were quite close in actual performance.

In 1997 the Williams wasn't simply stronger in the first few races, it was dominant in the first half of the season, the second half of the season was more of a fight but not always against the same car it was still the best car in the second half of the season, the car had a season long average qualifying advantage of 0.29s to the next best car at any given race.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's being used as a means to measure JV against Hamilton to prove that JV was better than Rosberg do you not then delve into the truth of it?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's being used as a means to measure JV against Hamilton to prove that JV was better than Rosberg do you not then delve into the truth of it?

Except that's not true. I never claimed that I could prove JV was better than Rosberg. In fact I said:

Point is that's very much subjective.

The only measure I took was to say that Hamilton and JV had almost identical debuts. But I clarified that in later posts by saying I thought Hamilton was better than JV. You're adding 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 here because you're arguing against a claim I never actually made.

We were comparing drivers of Schumacher's era with those of today. I voiced the opinion that Schumacher's era wasn't completely devoid of talent as some are trying to make out. I highlighted JV's and Hill's achievements to show they were better than average and openly expressed a subjective opinion that I felt both were better than Rosberg. I never once tried to "prove" that and indeed stated right from the beginning that this was impossible. It's not me trying to prove anything

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

Blimey, this thread has taken a pretty wild direction. Hamilton "beating" Alonso in 2007 seems to be part of what is being debated. For what it's worth, I believe he did. We can debate the statistics and countback rule but that's not what I mean when I say Hamilton beat Alonso. He won the internal battle.

When Mclaren signed Alonso back in 2005 he was seemingly obviously going to be the number 1 driver for 2007. But that early 2007 consistency was crucial for Hamilton as it gave him a platform to be allowed to fight for the championship and undermine Alonso. Especially after the Canada win. This sparked off the breakdown in relations between Mclaren and Fernando.

While winning the internal politics didn't bring him the 2007 title, it helped bring about Alonso having to switch to an uncompetitive Renault outfit for a couple of Alonso's peak years while Hamilton won the 2008 title.

Had Hanilton started 2007 sluggishly then it seems very likely that Hamilton would have had to be more compliant and that Alonso would have won that world title and the 2008 title. But then perhaps Alonso and Hamilton would have been booted out of the championship standings after spygate in that scenario as the Hamilton "fairytale" may well have had some bearing on the drivers maintaining their points.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

Heikki was in the second best car in 2008 and let's not talk about how good the car was in 2009, JV's performances were often masked by how good the Williams was in 1996, the qualifying gap to Hill was quite large 13-3 with an average gap of 0.34s, Hill won 8 races, JV won 4 races, Hill scored 19 more points than JV which in todays money is 48 points with the same mechanical unreliability. The car had similar performance to the Mercedes car of 2014-16, I'm sure in such a car the likes of Bottas might look better and not be in threat of losing his seat.

Anyway you was comparing with Hamilton not Heikki, that seems to be shifting things, Hamilton matched Alonso in every department something that JV didn't do in any department with Hill and Alonso is seen as a much better driver than Hill, let's also not forget here is that your goal is to prove your assertion that JV was a better driver than Rosberg so I think you are coming up a bit short if you are looking to ascertain that JV and Hamilton were quite close in actual performance.

In 1997 the Williams wasn't simply stronger in the first few races, it was dominant in the first half of the season, the second half of the season was more of a fight but not always against the same car it was still the best car in the second half of the season, the car had a season long average qualifying advantage of 0.29s to the next best car at any given race.

I'm not shifting things at all. I'm pointing out that a good car isn't a guarantee of success, as demonstrated by Kovaleinen. Which supports the idea that JV wasn't half bad.

I do think that JV is a better driver than Rosberg. But - and it's getting a little tiring having to repeat this - I'm not looking to prove it as I don't think it can be proven. Please don't put words into my mouth, thanks very much. I'm just highlighting that JV isn't the nonentity you seem to think he is and at the end of the day it's just my opinion.

I don't rate Rosberg very highly at all. We've discussed this before so it shouldn't come as a surprise and it's not as though I'm shifting position. I think he's very fast but comparative to his speed I think his racecraft is mediocre at best. And I'd rate both Hill and JV superior in that department.

The car was the car to have in 1997, no disagreement there, but that doesn't mean that the drivers could cruise to the finish. They still had work to do and their advantage wasn't big enough that they could afford to relax. JV didn't disgrace himself in either year and he put in a decent enough performance. Liker I said, I think you do him a disservice by putting it all down to the car.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's being used as a means to measure JV against Hamilton to prove that JV was better than Rosberg do you not then delve into the truth of it?

Except that's not true. I never claimed that I could prove JV was better than Rosberg. In fact I said:

Point is that's very much subjective.

The only measure I took was to say that Hamilton and JV had almost identical debuts. But I clarified that in later posts by saying I thought Hamilton was better than JV. You're adding 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 here because you're arguing against a claim I never actually made.

We were comparing drivers of Schumacher's era with those of today. I voiced the opinion that Schumacher's era wasn't completely devoid of talent as some are trying to make out. I highlighted JV's and Hill's achievements to show they were better than average and openly expressed a subjective opinion that I felt both were better than Rosberg. I never once tried to "prove" that and indeed stated right from the beginning that this was impossible. It's not me trying to prove anything

Of course it's just your opinion to which you are entitled, then you gave your reason, then I chose to question that reasoning why you think JV was better than Rosberg.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

DC was poor that year but then again he was paired with Hakkinen who I would rate that bit better than Hill, the 1996 Williiams still comes out as being better than the 1998 McLaren even with Hill as the main driver as opposed to Hakkinen.

The 1997 Williams was clearly the better car, it was dominant in the first part of the season, the 2008 McLaren was competitive but it wasn't the best car.

Sure there were differences. No-one's arguing there weren't. But there are a lot of similarities, too. You're getting way too hung up on the technicalities. JV had a pretty decent debut, the best of anyone until Hamilton came along. And the first two years played out almost the same.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

they both had impressive cars. Yes, Villeneuve's was better but he still managed to beat his team mate a few times. Nobody's saying that Villeneuve and Hamilton are similar drivers, just that their debuts were quite similar. And yes, the fact that the two of them share the best rookie debut title is one of those similarities.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

Heikki was in the second best car in 2008 and let's not talk about how good the car was in 2009, JV's performances were often masked by how good the Williams was in 1996, the qualifying gap to Hill was quite large 13-3 with an average gap of 0.34s, Hill won 8 races, JV won 4 races, Hill scored 19 more points than JV which in todays money is 48 points with the same mechanical unreliability. The car had similar performance to the Mercedes car of 2014-16, I'm sure in such a car the likes of Bottas might look better and not be in threat of losing his seat.

Anyway you was comparing with Hamilton not Heikki, that seems to be shifting things, Hamilton matched Alonso in every department something that JV didn't do in any department with Hill and Alonso is seen as a much better driver than Hill, let's also not forget here is that your goal is to prove your assertion that JV was a better driver than Rosberg so I think you are coming up a bit short if you are looking to ascertain that JV and Hamilton were quite close in actual performance.

In 1997 the Williams wasn't simply stronger in the first few races, it was dominant in the first half of the season, the second half of the season was more of a fight but not always against the same car it was still the best car in the second half of the season, the car had a season long average qualifying advantage of 0.29s to the next best car at any given race.

I'm not shifting things at all. I'm pointing out that a good car isn't a guarantee of success, as demonstrated by Kovaleinen. Which supports the idea that JV wasn't half bad.

I do think that JV is a better driver than Rosberg. But - and it's getting a little tiring having to repeat this - I'm not looking to prove it as I don't think it can be proven. Please don't put words into my mouth, thanks very much. I'm just highlighting that JV isn't the nonentity you seem to think he is and at the end of the day it's just my opinion.

I don't rate Rosberg very highly at all. We've discussed this before so it shouldn't come as a surprise and it's not as though I'm shifting position. I think he's very fast but comparative to his speed I think his racecraft is mediocre at best. And I'd rate both Hill and JV superior in that department.

The car was the car to have in 1997, no disagreement there, but that doesn't mean that the drivers could cruise to the finish. They still had work to do and their advantage wasn't big enough that they could afford to relax. JV didn't disgrace himself in either year and he put in a decent enough performance. Liker I said, I think you do him a disservice by putting it all down to the car.

The problem with JV is what came after, he got sacked after getting beat by Button, nearly got sacked after being beat by Massa but hung onto his 2 year contract, but even then was let go late in the season after trailing behind Heidfeld, his best 2 years were basically when he was in the best car in F1, the first year a dominant car, the second year still clearly the best car but yes he got the job done and at the time yes he was highly thought of, but that was basically the pinnacle of his career that one year, the following season he beat Frentzen by 4 points, that's just a quick google search.

Rosberg you don't rate because he got beat by Hamilton, the only driver he lost to apart from his rookie season, he beats various teammates with poor racecraft?

Rosberg retired as Champion with no downside after that unlike JV who had the indignity of looking no better than a tier 2 driver after losses to such drivers.

JV's car wasn't simply better it was a lot better, a dominant car in his first year and out and out best car in his second year, Barrichello managed to beat Schumacher a few times I don't understand the relevance of that?

The relevance is that he still managed to get wins and therefore beat his more established team mate on occasion. Kovaleinen has demonstrated that getting into a top car isn't enough and the driver has to perform, too.

Hamilton had the joint best car in his first year - the difference between that and JV's situation isn't exactly huge. The Ferraris and McLarens were way ahead of the rest of the field. JV impressed most people when he started in F1 and the bottom line is that until Hamilton came along he was the most successful rookie. And in JV's second year although the car started very strongly JV certainly had to fight for it after the first few races. It's not like all JV had to do was turn up and I think you're doing him a disservice by writing down his title to the car. In any event, however you like to cut it the fact remains that both rookies came 2nd in their debut year and both then succeeded in getting the title in their 2nd year

Heikki was in the second best car in 2008 and let's not talk about how good the car was in 2009, JV's performances were often masked by how good the Williams was in 1996, the qualifying gap to Hill was quite large 13-3 with an average gap of 0.34s, Hill won 8 races, JV won 4 races, Hill scored 19 more points than JV which in todays money is 48 points with the same mechanical unreliability. The car had similar performance to the Mercedes car of 2014-16, I'm sure in such a car the likes of Bottas might look better and not be in threat of losing his seat.

Anyway you was comparing with Hamilton not Heikki, that seems to be shifting things, Hamilton matched Alonso in every department something that JV didn't do in any department with Hill and Alonso is seen as a much better driver than Hill, let's also not forget here is that your goal is to prove your assertion that JV was a better driver than Rosberg so I think you are coming up a bit short if you are looking to ascertain that JV and Hamilton were quite close in actual performance.

In 1997 the Williams wasn't simply stronger in the first few races, it was dominant in the first half of the season, the second half of the season was more of a fight but not always against the same car it was still the best car in the second half of the season, the car had a season long average qualifying advantage of 0.29s to the next best car at any given race.

I'm not shifting things at all. I'm pointing out that a good car isn't a guarantee of success, as demonstrated by Kovaleinen. Which supports the idea that JV wasn't half bad.

I do think that JV is a better driver than Rosberg. But - and it's getting a little tiring having to repeat this - I'm not looking to prove it as I don't think it can be proven. Please don't put words into my mouth, thanks very much. I'm just highlighting that JV isn't the nonentity you seem to think he is and at the end of the day it's just my opinion.

I don't rate Rosberg very highly at all. We've discussed this before so it shouldn't come as a surprise and it's not as though I'm shifting position. I think he's very fast but comparative to his speed I think his racecraft is mediocre at best. And I'd rate both Hill and JV superior in that department.

The car was the car to have in 1997, no disagreement there, but that doesn't mean that the drivers could cruise to the finish. They still had work to do and their advantage wasn't big enough that they could afford to relax. JV didn't disgrace himself in either year and he put in a decent enough performance. Liker I said, I think you do him a disservice by putting it all down to the car.

The problem with JV is what came after, he got sacked after getting beat by Button, nearly got sacked after being beat by Massa but hung onto his 2 year contract, but even then was let go late in the season after trailing behind Heidfeld, his best 2 years were basically when he was in the best car in F1, the first year a dominant car, the second year still clearly the best car but yes he got the job done and at the time yes he was highly thought of, but that was basically the pinnacle of his career that one year, the following season he beat Frentzen by 4 points, that's just a quick google search.

Rosberg you don't rate because he got beat by Hamilton, the only driver he lost to apart from his rookie season, he beats various teammates with poor racecraft?

Rosberg retired as Champion with no downside after that unlike JV who had the indignity of looking no better than a tier 2 driver after losses to such drivers.

We've had discussions on Rosberg before and I remember showing you a quote from me before he even partnered Hamilton saying I thought he was "anonymous" in the races. I rate Hamilton very highly so why would I dismiss Rosberg because Hamilton beat him? He's clearly very quick but that's not enough to make a good driver and he's never, ever impressed me with his driving on a Sunday. Not that I recall, anyway. It's utterly laughable that it took him 3/4 of the race before he finally managed to pass Alonso at the Chinese Grand Prix in 2014, despite having a massive performance advantage. Says it all about his racecraft, really. He relied on his undoubted speed to position himself well on Saturday and often spent most of the following Sunday slipping back down the order. At least, until he got his own rocket ship and then that didn't matter anymore.

Rosberg and JV had their careers in reverse. Rosberg got his title with not a little bit of luck and JV impressed me more in his title challenge than Rosberg ever did.

Surely the only similarity is that both drivers narrowly lost the drivers' title in their first season and then won it in their second. The context within which each driver achieved this is entirely different. I think the point is that Villeneuve could not fail to have an impressive-looking start to his F1 career given that he had the best car by quite a margin.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

DC was poor that year but then again he was paired with Hakkinen who I would rate that bit better than Hill, the 1996 Williiams still comes out as being better than the 1998 McLaren even with Hill as the main driver as opposed to Hakkinen.

The 1997 Williams was clearly the better car, it was dominant in the first part of the season, the 2008 McLaren was competitive but it wasn't the best car.

Is this one of these "you guys didn't praise Hamilton enough" things again? The point has been made before that Zoue did not allude that JV is better than Hamilton, which is always a sore point it seems, so don't worry. Only that the results are comparable.

Sure the Macca didn't enjoy the advantage that the Williams did, but it wasn't disadvantaged in any way, I'd put it joint first.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

Again I feel there's a false equivalence being drawn here because the competitiveness of the 1997 Williams and 2008 McLaren were quite different. I am firmly of the opinion that the 96-97 Williams was on the level of the 14-16 Mercedes and that Schumacher only made it look like it wasn't by being that much better than everyone else. Villeneuve did admittedly beat Frentzen quite comfortably in 97, although less so in 98, but Frentzen is such a difficult yardstick to use because he was so hopelessly inconsistent over his career. Personally I never worked out if he was any good or not: I have trouble believing that the Frentzen of 1999 was the same driver as the one I saw in 1997 and 2001.

I do not think that anyone claimed that JV was as good as Hamilton (something that always bugs certain people in here). Rather that there are parallels in their first two years results. Which there are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in F3 and they were both in the same team.

not sure I understand your point here?

I think the point being made is that someone's junior career is often not an indication of how good they are in F1. Although personally I'd prefer to cite Jan Magnussen or Giorgio Pantano.

Sure, I don't believe anyone suggested that. I think the original point that was being made was that Villeneuve's first two seasons were impressive on the basis that his results were similar to Hamilton's in his first two. The disagreement here is that I don't see much relevance to the fact that the two drivers achieved similar results in their first two seasons given that they both did so under quite different circumstances. To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

He could have failed to win the title, though. Still had to beat Frentzen at the very least, whose junior record led many to believe he had the potential to be quicker than Schumacher, IIRC.

Paul di Resta beat Vettel in F3 and they were both in the same team.

not sure I understand your point here?

I think the point being made is that someone's junior career is often not an indication of how good they are in F1. Although personally I'd prefer to cite Jan Magnussen or Giorgio Pantano.

yeah but it doesn't have to be. There's not one hard and fast rule that applies to everybody and in any event HHF did pretty well in 1999 too so wasn't a completely hopeless case

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

Again I feel there's a false equivalence being drawn here because the competitiveness of the 1997 Williams and 2008 McLaren were quite different. I am firmly of the opinion that the 96-97 Williams was on the level of the 14-16 Mercedes and that Schumacher only made it look like it wasn't by being that much better than everyone else. Villeneuve did admittedly beat Frentzen quite comfortably in 97, although less so in 98, but Frentzen is such a difficult yardstick to use because he was so hopelessly inconsistent over his career. Personally I never worked out if he was any good or not: I have trouble believing that the Frentzen of 1999 was the same driver as the one I saw in 1997 and 2001.

If the 1997 Williams had been on a par with the 2014-16 Mercedes then it wouldn't have mattered how good Schumacher was as he wouldn't have been able to touch them. From Canada onwards pole yo-yo'd between different cars - not just Schumacher - and it's almost impossible to imagine that happening in the Merc dominant years. I don't think that's a realistic comparison at all.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

Again I feel there's a false equivalence being drawn here because the competitiveness of the 1997 Williams and 2008 McLaren were quite different. I am firmly of the opinion that the 96-97 Williams was on the level of the 14-16 Mercedes and that Schumacher only made it look like it wasn't by being that much better than everyone else. Villeneuve did admittedly beat Frentzen quite comfortably in 97, although less so in 98, but Frentzen is such a difficult yardstick to use because he was so hopelessly inconsistent over his career. Personally I never worked out if he was any good or not: I have trouble believing that the Frentzen of 1999 was the same driver as the one I saw in 1997 and 2001.

If the 1997 Williams had been on a par with the 2014-16 Mercedes then it wouldn't have mattered how good Schumacher was as he wouldn't have been able to touch them. From Canada onwards pole yo-yo'd between different cars - not just Schumacher - and it's almost impossible to imagine that happening in the Merc dominant years. I don't think that's a realistic comparison at all.

But the sport was quite different back then, it wasn't as data-driven (although it was on its way there) and the drivers didn't have the level of constant coaching, feedback and supervision from the pitwall that they do now. Thus I believe the driver made a greater difference; without looking at any stats I'd be willing to bet that the average time difference between team mates was greater then than it is now.

If we do look at the non-Williams and non-Schumacher poles I see Berger and Alesi at Hockenheim and Monza - two circuits where straight line speed dwarfed all other factors and Benetton evidently had an advantage - and Hakkinen at the Nurburgring by which point in the season I'll concede that McLaren were getting close to Williams' level.

To re-iterate what I said before, I don't think Villeneuve could have failed to look impressive in those first two years given the car he was driving.

I don't see that. We've had one-sided driver pairings in dominant cars before. How about 1998, when Coulthard won a grand total of a single race (compared to eight for his teammate) in a car that was at times a second per lap faster than the competition? If Villeneuve had done something like that, it wouldn't have been impressive. He didn't match Hill, but he was respectably close for his first year.

He didn't do as well as Hamilton in his first year, but I don't think you need to match the best rookie season of all time to look good. And to be perfectly honest, I think Villeneuve's 1997 campaign was every bit as impressive as Hamilton's 2008 season. He beat a highly rated teammate who many had tapped to expose him, and he didn't make any more mistakes than Hamilton did.

DC was poor that year but then again he was paired with Hakkinen who I would rate that bit better than Hill, the 1996 Williiams still comes out as being better than the 1998 McLaren even with Hill as the main driver as opposed to Hakkinen.

The 1997 Williams was clearly the better car, it was dominant in the first part of the season, the 2008 McLaren was competitive but it wasn't the best car.

Is this one of these "you guys didn't praise Hamilton enough" things again? The point has been made before that Zoue did not allude that JV is better than Hamilton, which is always a sore point it seems, so don't worry. Only that the results are comparable.

Sure the Macca didn't enjoy the advantage that the Williams did, but it wasn't disadvantaged in any way, I'd put it joint first.